This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I agree, but the last big changes were in the early 1990s, Greenspan/Clinton.

Agreed.

I figured - this kind of thing is a ZH special. Been seeing it for years, which is why I now ignore them on employment reports. Calculated Risk does a good job analysing the reports each month, and he has no partisan bias that I can see.

And I could follow your numbers fine - A-8 and A-9. My point was those figures make no sense. From Feb to May, part time workers went all the way from 27,330 to 27,219 (minus 111 thousand, over 3 months, almost no monthly change). Then from May to June, went from 27,219 to 28,018 (up 799k in one month). We can't know what the actual numbers are, but that's just not a believable series. Finally, almost all that change is due to part time for NONeconomic reasons - 840k more WANTED to work part time in June versus May.

So it's noise. Whether the numbers were too low for the past few months, this month's numbers have some weird flaw, something is distorting the month to month comparison, which is why the short term variations are often not much use. If the number stays high next month, and in August, we have a trend. For now, who the heck knows....

I agree that the numbers are weird.

But I am only using them since the masses, government, media use them (BLS numbers).

So when the headline reads 288,000 new jobs (using the non-household survey numbers) and 'isn't it wonderful?'...then I have to use the same source to point out that no, the numbers are not 'wonderful'.

But I am only using them since the masses, government, media use them (BLS numbers).

So when the headline reads 288,000 new jobs (using the non-household survey numbers) and 'isn't it wonderful?'...then I have to use the same source to point out that no, the numbers are not 'wonderful'.

We basically agree. My gripe with ZH is, for example, for April 2014, there were per the Household Survey +412 new jobs, and -398k part timers, so net new full time jobs was +810. I briefly looked and saw this noted nowhere at ZH - their stories on the report only mentioned that involuntary part time was 'little changed.' But when the part timers increase, well THAT needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because that fits their BLS is garbage, Obama sux, sky is falling, day to day outlook.

And it's too bad. Paul Craig Roberts had something published in ZH that pointed out the June 800k new part timers, and I agree with a lot of his message, especially about 'free trade' and the collapse of our economic core, but when it's buried in a bunch of crap about the jobs report that I know is crap, and is so easily proved crap by the BLS report itself, he undermines his message. Roberts blames the increase in part timers on employer firing full time workers, but the increase is nearly all in VOLUNTARY part timers, which he doesn't mention.

Anyway that's my problem, but I'm not defending the people who only look at U-3. What one CAN do and what Calculated Risk does, is go into the details but without a bias that you know going in means ZH and who they put on the front page will put the most negative possible spin on the report. In my experience, if CR says it's a good report, it's a good report. Where the numbers look squishy or unreal, he says so. If not, he doesn't search for something. If it's bad, he says the report is bad, and why.

We basically agree. My gripe with ZH is, for example, for April 2014, there were per the Household Survey +412 new jobs, and -398k part timers, so net new full time jobs was +810. I briefly looked and saw this noted nowhere at ZH - their stories on the report only mentioned that involuntary part time was 'little changed.' But when the part timers increase, well THAT needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because that fits their BLS is garbage, Obama sux, sky is falling, day to day outlook.

And it's too bad. Paul Craig Roberts had something published in ZH that pointed out the June 800k new part timers, and I agree with a lot of his message, especially about 'free trade' and the collapse of our economic core, but when it's buried in a bunch of crap about the jobs report that I know is crap, and is so easily proved crap by the BLS report itself, he undermines his message. Roberts blames the increase in part timers on employer firing full time workers, but the increase is nearly all in VOLUNTARY part timers, which he doesn't mention.

Anyway that's my problem, but I'm not defending the people who only look at U-3. What one CAN do and what Calculated Risk does, is go into the details but without a bias that you know going in means ZH and who they put on the front page will put the most negative possible spin on the report. In my experience, if CR says it's a good report, it's a good report. Where the numbers look squishy or unreal, he says so. If not, he doesn't search for something. If it's bad, he says the report is bad, and why.

ZH is clearly VERY biased.

However, I find their stats are usually accurate - their other information or interpretations sometimes not so much.

Plus, they often report things that major media sources do not - the 799K/523K thingy is a great example.

As an initial source of under-the-radar information, I think they are great...one should always double check what they say though and take their conclusions with a huge grain of salt.

I'd personally like to thank walk marts CEO for suppressing the economic recovery because instead of spending money on infrastructure and creating more jobs, we are instead all forced to pay for his employees food stamps and other subsidies because they pay their employees so poorly.

Complete Bull ****!

1. Walmart's CEO personally has less to do with suppressing the so called recovery than America's CEO does.

2. It is not up to a business CEO's to "spend money on infrastructure" That is done through taxes, and fees, which Walmart pays...

3. Walmart is the largest employer in the United States. I'd say they've created jobs.

4. Poor salaries, Walmart offers a job at a salary. That doesn't mean you have to work for that. My son works for Walmart (as a second job, he also works for FedEx) at that Walmart job he makes $11.72 per hour...plenty fair wage for what he does.

Progressives have some awfully strange ideas about what corporate responsibility should be in this country.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

However, I find their stats are usually accurate - their other information or interpretations sometimes not so much.

Plus, they often report things that major media sources do not - the 799K/523K thingy is a great example.

As an initial source of under-the-radar information, I think they are great...one should always double check what they say though and take their conclusions with a huge grain of salt.

I follow them on Twitter, have them bookmarked and read them for a contrary opinion on things, and for their sometimes very interesting insights on trading etc. That's what they are good at.

I can tell you with certainty they don't know squat about the BLS, how data works, how sampling works, and on the jobs reports are frequently just making crap up that is just not correct or is misleading to the point of being false. Just as one example, if they mention the birth/death adjustments, ignore. They don't understand it, how it's calculated, and don't seem to grasp that the data has a KNOWN error - the birth/deaths of companies not in the sample because by definition they can't BE in the sample. So to correct his KNOWN error, the gearheads estimate that error, and that estimate is the B/D adjustments. Well, they pretend it's just a phantom number, made up to make the data look pretty, but that's just not true. Sure, it's an estimate, but I prefer a gearhead's estimate to my own ignorant guess, and prefer an estimate based on their considerable expertise than accepting a known error in the data that will nearly always in an expanding economy understate jobs created, and then that gets corrected in one BIG adjustment in April or whenever for the previous year. Spreading it out over 12 months improves the value of the information. But they won't EVER admit it, it seems....

Anyway, I generally like their stuff, or at least find it interesting, except their employment 'analysis.' Just my opinion....

1. Walmart's CEO personally has less to do with suppressing the so called recovery than America's CEO does.

2. It is not up to a business CEO's to "spend money on infrastructure" That is done through taxes, and fees, which Walmart pays...

3. Walmart is the largest employer in the United States. I'd say they've created jobs.

4. Poor salaries, Walmart offers a job at a salary. That doesn't mean you have to work for that. My son works for Walmart (as a second job, he also works for FedEx) at that Walmart job he makes $11.72 per hour...plenty fair wage for what he does.

Progressives have some awfully strange ideas about what corporate responsibility should be in this country.

Progressives do? lol

Here you are defending a company whose designed a business model that leans heavily on having their employees need food stamps and medicaid. That's the kind of jobs you seem to be cheering for... yeah... it's not progressives with the strange ideas on corporate responsibility. At least we want corporations to take some responsibility instead of pushing off for their business models expenses on the taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Moderate Right

The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

I don't think the government is lying (they are too smart for that)...but I think they are knowingly tabulating and presenting the numbers (both the CPI and the U-3) in a way that provides a greatly distorted view of the reality on Main Street.

The CPI as an inflation indicator is a joke....it is at best an inflation/cost-of-living hybrid.

And the unemployment rate is falling because people are leaving the workforce...period.

Just look at last month...288,000 jobs created.
But look at the household survey numbers and you see that 799K part time jobs were created but 523K full time jobs were lost for a net loss in total hours worked. So it was a negative report but is reported as a good one.

The U-3 is the same...it's a joke because it ignores discouraged workers.

I ignore the headline numbers and the major media reports (they are clueless, IMO) and read the fine print...that is where the story is.

It seems clear to me that this is a Mercedes/McDonald's recovery - with little in between; the Fed is indirectly pumping up the stock markets (GREATLY helping the rich) and gov't./Fed programs are causing rises in crappy jobs for a reduction in solid jobs (quantity over quality).

So the rich get richer and the economy looks decent because the U-3 does not count discouraged workers AND part time jobs are counted equal to full time jobs.

I figure the role of the government is to do and be whatever those who are in power desire it to be. If it is a dictator who desires to behead people, then that's it's roll. If it is a democracy or representitive democracy operating under a constitutional framework (a republic), then it's the roll of government to do whatever the representatives of the people desire it to be.

You sound like you are reading from a book entitled "The Roll of Government Checklist".

Originally Posted by ocean515

...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....

Originally Posted by Papa bull

I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.